Chick-fil-A restaurant in CA will pay employees $17 an hour

[Toddsterpatriot]

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

And nobody ever loses money when they run an LLC...…….moron!

their personal wealth is protected; they aren't taking 'huge risks'. Get back to me when shareholders have to start paying their own bills and debts they owe to the penny instead of that crooked stop-loss scam that lets them keep whatever they plundered out of the companies over the weekend before filing bankruptcy on Monday.

As I said and you keep on proving in every post, you don't know shit about any of it, you're just a parrot.

You obviously have never started a business, never struggled to make it succeed, never had to meet payroll when cash flow fell off. In short, you're arguing from a position of vast ignorance.

Now, please try to get the subject back on me. I'm fascinating.

Ah, now you're just projecting as usual. You really should learn about business before you run around the net prattling about it.

Tell us have you seen the books or spread sheets on company's you worked for?


I have..

So what? I do my own accounting, I don't need to read fiction generated by somebody else. You seem impressed by software, though. Another reason why you can't compete.

I do my own accounting

OMG. Hilarious.

 

[Wyatt earp]

their personal wealth is protected; they aren't taking 'huge risks'. Get back to me when shareholders have to start paying their own bills and debts they owe to the penny instead of that crooked stop-loss scam that lets them keep whatever they plundered out of the companies over the weekend before filing bankruptcy on Monday.

As I said and you keep on proving in every post, you don't know shit about any of it, you're just a parrot.

You obviously have never started a business, never struggled to make it succeed, never had to meet payroll when cash flow fell off. In short, you're arguing from a position of vast ignorance.

Now, please try to get the subject back on me. I'm fascinating.

Ah, now you're just projecting as usual. You really should learn about business before you run around the net prattling about it.

Tell us have you seen the books or spread sheets on company's you worked for?


I have..

So what? I do my own accounting, I don't need to read fiction generated by somebody else. You seem impressed by software, though. Another reason why you can't compete.

I do my own accounting

OMG. Hilarious.

Me thinks Picaro and dell are the one and the same.

 

[hadit]

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place.

And that's why you don't care if your hike in the minimum wage costs low skilled people their jobs. ​

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

Doesn't explain it. Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour an hour minimum wage. San Francisco has a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Why is the Unemployment rate lower, if not for more People looking for work at that wage rate?

We are so impressed


Seattle still doesn’t know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles

Seattle still doesn't know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles ...
The Seattle Times › homeless › seattle-stil...


View attachment 200315

Right to work States are even less, impressive. At least, those who Can Find a Job in our "impressive right wing economy", can make enough to get out of that condition.

You didn't notice that UE is very low right now?

 

[hadit]

The poor may benefit.

The Working Poor will.

The ones laid off because their employer is forced to pay more than their labor is worth will not.

Workers are laid off for two reasons:

1) The employer is an idiot.

2) Investors want unrealistic returns.

You're displaying an astonishing lack of knowledge regarding business.

A perfect example of an idiot employer is Hostess Brands. Hostess failed to follow the "health kick" that fat Americans started in the 80's and never recovered.

McDonalds investors wanted higher returns. McDonalds answered back with a 36% increase to investors from 1999 to 2016. To pay for this, McDonalds laid off in 1998 and announced another set of layoff's this month.

Yippee skippee. Now address the situation thousands of small businesses face every year when business drops off for 2 or 3 quarters and they can't make payroll. And making up numbers doesn't count.

 

[hadit]

That's 22 points higher than yours. Go ahead and show us how much $17 an hour is going to add to the average fast food order at any store with a decent business.. We'll wait. Well, maybe not for Todster, since he has no idea what the question even means.

Go ahead and show us how much $17 an hour is going to add to the average fast food order at any store with a decent business..

Sounds like an interesting exercise.
You should definitely open a fast food restaurant, pay all your employees at least $17/hour and be
sure to post your results here. Your food will probably be cheaper than all your competitors, and your profits higher, because you're such an economics wiz.

We have metrics from establishments that passed on that cost via a surcharge.

No where near what right wing hearsayers and right wing soothsayers claim.

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour. The cheapest order is around $1, or 11%, with a drink $2, or 5.5%, a regular breakfast meal at $4 or so, 2.75 %, etc., etc, etc. That Big giant increase in burgers?Well, a Big Mc meal is what, now, $6 or so? 1.8%

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour.

An extra 975 cents per employee per hour would be paid for by 11 cents per order?
That would mean 89 orders per hour per employee. How many employees? 7? More?
I don't think your numbers add up.

View attachment 200314
Owning a McDonald’s Franchise: Purchase Cost vs. Annual Profit

Assuming "Crew Payroll" is the minimum wage employees, 17/7.25=2.345,
2.345 x 540,000 = 1,266,207. An increase of 726k.
726000/2700000(net sales) = 27%.

You think 11 cents an order is 27%? DERP!

Keep talking out of your ass, it's amusing.

Capitalists get tax breaks for simply paying wages. Labor does not get a tax break for simply working.

That's because labor costs are a legitimate business expense. Let's put it this way, if you taxed labor costs, you'd get a lot less labor. Is that what you want?

 

[danielpalos]

Hadit, seems to have had it, with providing any rebuttals.

That isn't the case in Seattle or San Francisco. Both have lower unemployment rates than the national average.

You have no explanation. The left does.

Seattle and San Fransisco also have a lot of wealthy people who don't mind paying more for stuff. You're ignoring that.

Doesn't explain it. Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour an hour minimum wage. San Francisco has a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Why is the Unemployment rate lower, if not for more People looking for work at that wage rate?

We are so impressed


Seattle still doesn’t know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles

Seattle still doesn't know what to do with thousands of people living in vehicles ...
The Seattle Times › homeless › seattle-stil...


View attachment 200315

Right to work States are even less, impressive. At least, those who Can Find a Job in our "impressive right wing economy", can make enough to get out of that condition.

You didn't notice that UE is very low right now?

I notice that Labor wages are not rising as fast as management wages; recession or not.

 

[danielpalos]

Go ahead and show us how much $17 an hour is going to add to the average fast food order at any store with a decent business..

Sounds like an interesting exercise.
You should definitely open a fast food restaurant, pay all your employees at least $17/hour and be
sure to post your results here. Your food will probably be cheaper than all your competitors, and your profits higher, because you're such an economics wiz.

We have metrics from establishments that passed on that cost via a surcharge.

No where near what right wing hearsayers and right wing soothsayers claim.

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour. The cheapest order is around $1, or 11%, with a drink $2, or 5.5%, a regular breakfast meal at $4 or so, 2.75 %, etc., etc, etc. That Big giant increase in burgers?Well, a Big Mc meal is what, now, $6 or so? 1.8%

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour.

An extra 975 cents per employee per hour would be paid for by 11 cents per order?
That would mean 89 orders per hour per employee. How many employees? 7? More?
I don't think your numbers add up.

View attachment 200314
Owning a McDonald’s Franchise: Purchase Cost vs. Annual Profit

Assuming "Crew Payroll" is the minimum wage employees, 17/7.25=2.345,
2.345 x 540,000 = 1,266,207. An increase of 726k.
726000/2700000(net sales) = 27%.

You think 11 cents an order is 27%? DERP!

Keep talking out of your ass, it's amusing.

Capitalists get tax breaks for simply paying wages. Labor does not get a tax break for simply working.

That's because labor costs are a legitimate business expense. Let's put it this way, if you taxed labor costs, you'd get a lot less labor. Is that what you want?

providing labor is part of the lot for Labor. Paying wages is what employers do. Labor would not work, without it.

 

[hadit]

Another Hero of the Corporate Ass Kissers

Right, understanding economics means I'm an ass kisser. DERP!!

lol you don't know jack shit; you're just another parrot.

in the comfort of fast food workers making $7.25 an hour.

$0 is so much better than $7.25.

No, $17 an hour is, dumbass. See, you're too stupid to get by without somebody holding your hand.

lol you don't know jack shit

I know more than you......low bar, admittedly.


No, $17 an hour is, dumbass

Hey, fucktard, it you only add $10 an hour in value, you won't get hired at $17 an hour, you'll be unemployed

at $0 an hour.

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Let me guess. You've never had to make a payroll, have you?

If you do it correctly it isn't an issue.

Being adequately financed, know who to hire (which can be farmed out), and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, hire relatives.

And never, ever, face an economic slump that drives down demand, and never, ever, have a big contact cancelled right before you start on it, and never, ever, have truckers go on strike so you can't get inventory.

Should I go on?

The bottom line is, there are factors out of your control that cause layoffs.

 

[hadit]

[

How long have you been obsessed with me that you would say that? Seriously, do you think I'm in the idle rich class?

I'm just answering your posts, so who's 'obsessed', here? ....

Now stop trying to change the subject onto me.

that's pretty funny, since that's what you resorted to almost immediately ',,, as always.

We're talking about those who take huge risks being able to earn big rewards and those who envy them.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

Try again.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

And nobody ever loses money when they run an LLC...…….moron!

their personal wealth is protected; they aren't taking 'huge risks'. Get back to me when shareholders have to start paying their own bills and debts they owe to the penny instead of that crooked stop-loss scam that lets them keep whatever they plundered out of the companies over the weekend before filing bankruptcy on Monday.

As I said and you keep on proving in every post, you don't know shit about any of it, you're just a parrot.

their personal wealth is protected;

Except for the wealth they invested in the LLC.

How much "wealth" does it take to open a shell company?

You tell us. You're the expert, right?

 

[hadit]

[

How long have you been obsessed with me that you would say that? Seriously, do you think I'm in the idle rich class?

I'm just answering your posts, so who's 'obsessed', here? ....

Now stop trying to change the subject onto me.

that's pretty funny, since that's what you resorted to almost immediately ',,, as always.

We're talking about those who take huge risks being able to earn big rewards and those who envy them.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

Try again.

"As always"? Just how long have you been following me around? Fess up, you're obsessed with me, aren't you?

As we all know, it's all about you!

Apparently, for some, it really is.

 

[hadit]

[

How long have you been obsessed with me that you would say that? Seriously, do you think I'm in the idle rich class?

I'm just answering your posts, so who's 'obsessed', here? ....

Now stop trying to change the subject onto me.

that's pretty funny, since that's what you resorted to almost immediately ',,, as always.

We're talking about those who take huge risks being able to earn big rewards and those who envy them.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

Try again.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

And nobody ever loses money when they run an LLC...…….moron!

their personal wealth is protected; they aren't taking 'huge risks'. Get back to me when shareholders have to start paying their own bills and debts they owe to the penny instead of that crooked stop-loss scam that lets them keep whatever they plundered out of the companies over the weekend before filing bankruptcy on Monday.

As I said and you keep on proving in every post, you don't know shit about any of it, you're just a parrot.

You obviously have never started a business, never struggled to make it succeed, never had to meet payroll when cash flow fell off. In short, you're arguing from a position of vast ignorance.

Now, please try to get the subject back on me. I'm fascinating.

Ah, now you're just projecting as usual. You really should learn about business before you run around the net prattling about it.

How long have you been meeting a payroll?

 

[danielpalos]

lol you don't know jack shit; you're just another parrot.

No, $17 an hour is, dumbass. See, you're too stupid to get by without somebody holding your hand.

lol you don't know jack shit

I know more than you......low bar, admittedly.


No, $17 an hour is, dumbass

Hey, fucktard, it you only add $10 an hour in value, you won't get hired at $17 an hour, you'll be unemployed

at $0 an hour.

Oh pipe down, troll; you're just another spammer with an agenda, and an especially dumb one at that. You know nothing about business or labor costs, period, and you know squat about 'adding value' to anything. You don't even know how to fill out those 1040 EZ's you have HR Block do for you every year. You just take their word for it what you owe.

Anybody who can't pay $17 an hour isn't doing enough business to hire anybody in the first place. IT's either a glutted market, or one of no real value to anybody. That's all there is to it.

Let me guess. You've never had to make a payroll, have you?

If you do it correctly it isn't an issue.

Being adequately financed, know who to hire (which can be farmed out), and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, hire relatives.

And never, ever, face an economic slump that drives down demand, and never, ever, have a big contact cancelled right before you start on it, and never, ever, have truckers go on strike so you can't get inventory.

Should I go on?

The bottom line is, there are factors out of your control that cause layoffs.

With unemployment compensation simply for being naturally unemployed on an at-will basis, means, Labor "could stay on top of the curve".

 

[hadit]

their personal wealth is protected; they aren't taking 'huge risks'. Get back to me when shareholders have to start paying their own bills and debts they owe to the penny instead of that crooked stop-loss scam that lets them keep whatever they plundered out of the companies over the weekend before filing bankruptcy on Monday.

As I said and you keep on proving in every post, you don't know shit about any of it, you're just a parrot.

You obviously have never started a business, never struggled to make it succeed, never had to meet payroll when cash flow fell off. In short, you're arguing from a position of vast ignorance.

Now, please try to get the subject back on me. I'm fascinating.

Ah, now you're just projecting as usual. You really should learn about business before you run around the net prattling about it.

Tell us have you seen the books or spread sheets on company's you worked for?


I have..

So what? I do my own accounting, I don't need to read fiction generated by somebody else. You seem impressed by software, though. Another reason why you can't compete.

I do my own accounting

OMG. Hilarious.

The business can't be that large if the owner can do all the accounting.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm just answering your posts, so who's 'obsessed', here? ....

that's pretty funny, since that's what you resorted to almost immediately ',,, as always.


They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

Try again.

They aren't 'taking hug risks', they're hiding behind a wonderful gimmick called 'limited liability corporations'.

And nobody ever loses money when they run an LLC...…….moron!

their personal wealth is protected; they aren't taking 'huge risks'. Get back to me when shareholders have to start paying their own bills and debts they owe to the penny instead of that crooked stop-loss scam that lets them keep whatever they plundered out of the companies over the weekend before filing bankruptcy on Monday.

As I said and you keep on proving in every post, you don't know shit about any of it, you're just a parrot.

You obviously have never started a business, never struggled to make it succeed, never had to meet payroll when cash flow fell off. In short, you're arguing from a position of vast ignorance.

Now, please try to get the subject back on me. I'm fascinating.

Ah, now you're just projecting as usual. You really should learn about business before you run around the net prattling about it.

How long have you been meeting a payroll?

I need an "earned income tax credit", to "meet payroll."

 

[hadit]

We have metrics from establishments that passed on that cost via a surcharge.

No where near what right wing hearsayers and right wing soothsayers claim.

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour. The cheapest order is around $1, or 11%, with a drink $2, or 5.5%, a regular breakfast meal at $4 or so, 2.75 %, etc., etc, etc. That Big giant increase in burgers?Well, a Big Mc meal is what, now, $6 or so? 1.8%

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour.

An extra 975 cents per employee per hour would be paid for by 11 cents per order?
That would mean 89 orders per hour per employee. How many employees? 7? More?
I don't think your numbers add up.

View attachment 200314
Owning a McDonald’s Franchise: Purchase Cost vs. Annual Profit

Assuming "Crew Payroll" is the minimum wage employees, 17/7.25=2.345,
2.345 x 540,000 = 1,266,207. An increase of 726k.
726000/2700000(net sales) = 27%.

You think 11 cents an order is 27%? DERP!

Keep talking out of your ass, it's amusing.

Capitalists get tax breaks for simply paying wages. Labor does not get a tax break for simply working.

That's because labor costs are a legitimate business expense. Let's put it this way, if you taxed labor costs, you'd get a lot less labor. Is that what you want?

providing labor is part of the lot for Labor. Paying wages is what employers do. Labor would not work, without it.

You didn't address what I wrote.

 

[danielpalos]

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour. The cheapest order is around $1, or 11%, with a drink $2, or 5.5%, a regular breakfast meal at $4 or so, 2.75 %, etc., etc, etc. That Big giant increase in burgers?Well, a Big Mc meal is what, now, $6 or so? 1.8%

At the average McDonalds', it would add in the neighbor hood of 11 cents per order to raise the wages from $7.25 to $17 an hour.

An extra 975 cents per employee per hour would be paid for by 11 cents per order?
That would mean 89 orders per hour per employee. How many employees? 7? More?
I don't think your numbers add up.

View attachment 200314
Owning a McDonald’s Franchise: Purchase Cost vs. Annual Profit

Assuming "Crew Payroll" is the minimum wage employees, 17/7.25=2.345,
2.345 x 540,000 = 1,266,207. An increase of 726k.
726000/2700000(net sales) = 27%.

You think 11 cents an order is 27%? DERP!

Keep talking out of your ass, it's amusing.

Capitalists get tax breaks for simply paying wages. Labor does not get a tax break for simply working.

That's because labor costs are a legitimate business expense. Let's put it this way, if you taxed labor costs, you'd get a lot less labor. Is that what you want?

providing labor is part of the lot for Labor. Paying wages is what employers do. Labor would not work, without it.

You didn't address what I wrote.

Lousy capitalists will fail. Why doesn't Labor qualify for a tax break, for lousy capitalists.

Capitalists require Labor to "make a profit".

 

[Pilot1]

Labor requires capitalists to take huge risks, and invest their capital to create jobs.

 

[danielpalos]

Labor requires capitalists to take huge risks, and invest their capital to create jobs.

With federal spending at one hundred thirty-eight percent, it is Government that is creating jobs.

 

[Pilot1]

With federal spending at one hundred thirty-eight percent, it is Government that is creating jobs.

No. Government creates no wealth of its own. They get their money solely from the Private Sector. Anything government "creates" is a net drain on the economy as it takes more tax dollars to generate a job than the job can generate as an economic multiplier.

Private sector capitalists incentivized by the profit motive, and need to be efficient generates the wealth, investment, and jobs.

 

[danielpalos]

With federal spending at one hundred thirty-eight percent, it is Government that is creating jobs.

No. Government creates no wealth of its own. They get their money solely from the Private Sector. Anything government "creates" is a net drain on the economy as it takes more tax dollars to generate a job than the job can generate as an economic multiplier.

Private sector capitalists incentivized by the profit motive, and need to be efficient generates the wealth, investment, and jobs.

Just right wing propaganda. Most spending is command economics spending, not capital spending.

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simply command economics.